‘No Separate Law for Govt’: Delhi High Court Upholds Striking Off ICAR's Defence for Delay Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - 2025-09-10

‘No Son-in-Law Treatment for State’: Delhi HC Refuses to Condone ICAR’s Delay in Filing Defence

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a stern message on procedural discipline, dismissing a petition by the ICAR National Research Center of Plant Biotechnology that challenged a trial court's decision to strike off its defence for failing to file a Written Statement within the prescribed time. Justice Girish Kathpalia, upholding the trial court's orders, emphasized that the law of limitation operates equally for both government bodies and private citizens, and "routine delays of government machinery" is not a valid excuse for non-compliance.

Case Background

The case originated from a recovery suit of Rs. 4,86,400 filed by Azad Singh Dagar against the ICAR National Research Center of Plant Biotechnology. The ICAR was served with a summons on July 25, 2018. Under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), a defendant must file a Written Statement within 30 days, a period extendable to a maximum of 90 days.

Despite being served, ICAR failed to file its defence. Consequently, on January 19, 2019, the trial court struck off its right to file a defence. ICAR later filed a review application against this order and an application to condone the delay, both of which were dismissed by the trial court on May 30, 2025, prompting the present petition before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The counsel for the petitioner, ICAR, argued that procedural rules should not be used to defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The "colossal delay" from July 2018 to November 2020 was attributed to the inherent lethargy and procedural red tape within government departments.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Kathpalia found the petition unworthy of even issuing a notice. While acknowledging the principle that "procedure is the handmaid of justice," the Court firmly stated, "in the name of substantive rights, the procedural requirements cannot be trashed."

The Court observed that the statutory period to file the Written Statement had expired on August 24, 2018, and the maximum extendable period ended on October 24, 2018. The Written Statement was only brought before the trial court for the first time on May 4, 2019.

The Court held that the explanation of "lethargy in the government machinery" was completely vague and insufficient. It noted the absence of any specific details or a date-wise file movement record to demonstrate diligence on the part of the officials.

In its judgment, the Court cited key precedents to reinforce its stance:

• Union of India vs Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons (Delhi HC): Quoting this judgment, the court noted that litigants cannot expect a "‘son-in-law’ treatment" just because they are a state entity. The doctrine of equality before the law demands that the State be accorded the same treatment as any other litigant.
• State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal (Supreme Court): The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's anguish over governmental delays, highlighting the apex court's view that claims of "impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology" are unacceptable in the age of modern technology. The Supreme Court had declared, "Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments."

"The provision under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC operates equally for the Subjects as well as the State," the High Court declared in a pivotal excerpt from its judgment. "There is not even a whiff of any averment in the case set up by the petitioner to reflect any exceptional circumstances, which could justify condonation of delay."

Final Decision

Finding no infirmity in the trial court's orders, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition. The decision upholds the striking off of ICAR's defence. As a result, ICAR's participation in the ongoing suit is now limited to cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses and presenting final arguments, without having its own written defence on record.